Fantasy Congregation Building!

[ctobola]

Lutherrunner,

Those old buildings were great, weren't they?

The best wedding gift my wife and I received was one of the stained glass windows from the building where I grew up worshipping. (Unfortunately, it was torn down in the mid-70s due to structural problems.) It's still in storage after many years (and moves).

If anyone has ideas on how to mount an old (and somewhat fragile) stained glass window, I'd love to display/hang it in my home.

Excelsior! -Cloy

I'm reminising, but I miss the old traditional white wood church with the big steeple that I grew up with in the midwest......and the nice old stained glass windows......all the fellowship meals were down in the basement and my Aunt Adeline was ALWAYS in the kitchen....I used to think she lived there.....

 

[ctobola]

Dan,

Have you ever been asked, "If you were stranded alone on a desert island, what three objects would you want to have long?" (I recently heard a congregation member ask this question to a new pastor.)

Is the person who asks that question suggesting that you be stranded alone on a desert island? No.

Neither am I suggesting that we throw out our traditions. These are discussion points to begin talking about our values. They are providing a framework to "count it all loss" and consider how our lives fit with the message of Scripture (or whatever value system we buy into).

You say that I'm being cavalier about religious tradition, because I discussed life without it. Would you also say that the person who asks about being stranded on an island is being cavalier about human live, freedom, dignity and health? Was the person who asked the question of a pastor being disrespectful and suggesting that the pastor be standed on an island? No way.

You also note that this is contrary to the Confessions. I disagree. If I recall correctly, somewhere in his Table Talks Martin Luther notes that regardless of what we say, we should look at our own use of time and money to determine what we really value. He is proposing the same technique -- using new perspectives to gain accurate insight into ourselves and our lives.

Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

In Christ, -Cloy

No, I think you are misunderstanding my point.

(Change for changes sake or without proper solemn contemplation and need) != good



It was what I saw as a cavalier attitude about that change ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible.") that prompted my reply; this attitude itself is contrary to the Confessions. Now, I may have worded my reply a little stronger than necessary, it's just that I approach things differently. The attitude I see here, appears to me to be similar to: "let's see what all we can change and how far we can take it." While my position is, "Without a reasonable cause nothing should be changed. In order to cherish harmony, all old customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience."



All of the above are perfectly valid reasons for differing ammounts of change. If the situation is extreme enough, everything, save the proper teaching of the Word and correct distribution of the Sacraments, can be changed. But when no clear and reasonable cause is present, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to change. On the other side of the coin, if the changes are being forced, then nothing is adiaphora.



Heh!



What should be changed for changes sake ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible") is a completely different question than the ontological value of the congregation, especially one who respects tradition as much as possible (without great inconvenience, of course).



We don't change for changes sake, though. Certainly not with the attitude to "try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." We implement only those changes as are indeed adiaphora, and only when and if necessary.

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Protoevangel]

Have you ever been asked, "If you were stranded alone on a desert island, what three objects would you want to have long?" (I recently heard a congregation member ask this question to a new pastor.)

Is the person who asks that question suggesting that you be stranded alone on a desert island? No.

<snip>

Would you also say that the person who asks about being stranded on an island is being cavalier about human live, freedom, dignity and health? Was the person who asked the question of a pastor being disrespectful and suggesting that the pastor be standed on an island? No way.

You confuse the issues here. If I were stranded on a desert island, that would most likely be against my will. Your original question was not in any way related to what one would do if they had no choice. You said, "If you were to create a brand new congregational structure, what would it look like? There are no limitations on funds or involvement; but you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible. It may not violate the clear direction of Scripture or the Confessions."

I already told you I would change anything that is Adiaphora, if the situation required it, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Neither am I suggesting that we throw out our traditions. These are discussion points to begin talking about our values. They are providing a framework to "count it all loss" and consider how our lives fit with the message of Scripture (or whatever value system we buy into).

Then let's talk about those values instead of how we can redo anything and everything, just to be creative.

You say that I'm being cavalier about religious tradition, because I discussed life without it.

No, I said I saw the statement "you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." as cavalier. That is not just "discuss[ing] life without [tradition]", that is going out of your way to push the boundaries; pure recalcitrancy.

You see, Cloy, like I said, I am not against changing ANYTHING that is Adiaphora (I already stated that - more than once). All I require is the need for the change before I make the change. I'm sorry that I answered your post honestly, I never meant to get you so worked up over my opinion and how I see the situation you presented.

If you want to ask me what would I do if I were stranded on a desert island, fine go ahead. The thing is, I don't really have an answer, every situation is different. Do I have a Bible, are there natives, am I alone, do I have tools and food supplies, etc. But like I said in the beginning, (considering the lack of motive to make the changes, except for whim, to be "creative", and for "Fantasy") I would not make any changes, except perhaps to re-introduce older traditions that have regretfully fallen away in the American Lutheran church for no reason other than for changes sake.

 

[Protoevangel]

You also note that this is contrary to the Confessions. I disagree. If I recall correctly, somewhere in his Table Talks Martin Luther notes that regardless of what we say, we should look at our own use of time and money to determine what we really value. He is proposing the same technique -- using new perspectives to gain accurate insight into ourselves and our lives.

I have already shown that you are not just talking about values, but about change for changes sake. This is absolutely counter to the confessions.

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.

1] Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.

2] Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.

3] They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and 4] days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.

Summary:
1] All traditions that can be kept without sin, should be kept.
2] No one should be led to believe that their Salvation is contengent upon the keeping of these traditions, however.
3] Furthermore, no one should be led to believe that they merit Grace by the obvservation of any traditions.

The only changes the confessions actively promote are removing the abuses that had crept into the church.

Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.

4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.

Wow, does that mean we can change anything we want, anytime we want?

Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.

5] 3. Nevertheless, that herein all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and special care should be taken to exercise forbearance towards the weak in faith. 1 Cor. 8, 9; Rom. 14, 13.

We must take care in change. Like I said time and again, I do not mind change, as long as it is for a clear reason. In this way, we ensure no frivolity, and do no undue offence to anyone.

On the other hand, change just to "think... in new and creative ways", for Fantasy, and "try[ing] to [use] as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible", is indeed frivolity.

Change whatever Adiaphora as is necessary to preserve the proclomation of that which is not Adiaphora. Don't keep the traditions for Salvation or merit, but do it for those weaker than yourself in the faith. The very same reason you would make changes when necessary.

 

[SPALATIN]

I have already shown that you are not just talking about values, but about change for changes sake. This is absolutely counter to the confessions.


Summary:
1] All traditions that can be kept without sin, should be kept.
2] No one should be led to believe that their Salvation is contengent upon the keeping of these traditions, however.
3] Furthermore, no one should be led to believe that they merit Grace by the obvservation of any traditions.

The only changes the confessions actively promote are removing the abuses that had crept into the church.


Wow, does that mean we can change anything we want, anytime we want?


We must take care in change. Like I said time and again, I do not mind change, as long as it is for a clear reason. In this way, we ensure no frivolity, and do no undue offence to anyone.

On the other hand, change just to "think... in new and creative ways", for Fantasy, and "try[ing] to [use] as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible", is indeed frivolity.

Change whatever Adiaphora as is necessary to preserve the proclomation of that which is not Adiaphora. Don't keep the traditions for Salvation or merit, but do it for those weaker than yourself in the faith. The very same reason you would make changes when necessary.

Not only that, but change if done should be a slow process so that teaching my be used to prepare everyone for why change is necessary. Abrupt changes as regarding liturgy are never a good thing.

 

[ctobola]

Scott,

Still waiting to hear what is contrary to the Confessions or Scripture in the congregational model I described.

Clearly my friend has received the approval of the senior pastor, the elders, and his congregation. What is there to prohibit him from Preaching the Word or Administering the Sacraments?

-Cloy

Besides that it goes against the Article XIV in the AC.
...snip...Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.